It is thought that to create something you only need one cause; ie God.

But no, you need two causes that interact together. The two separate causes are 'synergistic', and through their synergistic interaction with each other, it creates a singular effect. This can be viewed by the number 3. 1 Cause and another 1 Cause manifests a 3rd, which is the singular effect of 1 Cause and another Cause interacting with each other.

Now, you have the material and non-material. Two sets of 3. (the 3 and the 6)

The number 0 really doesn't exist, but it can be related to the non-material (invisible to us) realm.When discussing Tesla's 'knowing the universe by understanding 3,6,9, well that gets a little bit more in depth and originally comes from this quote by Tesla.

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”-Tesla

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1511582

Well, Marko Rodin discovered a pattern inherent in the torus form which allows us to 'see' the 3,6,9 that Tesla was hinting at.

The 3,6,9 are singular effect points from two synergistic causes, as I showed above.

Then, perhaps, 3 and 6 that are singular effects can become another two causes that have a synergistic relationship with each other, creating the singular effect of 9...ie, creation.

Now, you can see how the numbers 1-9 are following the 2 causes = singular effect by understanding the 3,6,9 pattern.

This is going to get a little squirrel-ly. Well, maybe not. I'll put it simply.

0 does not exist in our reality. 0 cannot be because it cannot interact with anything, ever. There is nothing to interact with, therefor it cannot be a cause, and it cannot be an effect. You can imagine it as forever and always out of reach, as if you ever 'reached' it, you could never interact with it, as there is nothing there to interact with.

It is not that 0 is 'nothing'. It is that it doesn't even exist. I would call it a singularity that is impossible to interact with, but is the glue that holds it all together. Err...something like that. A form of Consciousness maybe? Perhaps it can be equated to Source.

It would be more of the transition point occurring between the synergistic causes. I once thought of it as the interaction point in the space between, but, there is no space between, it is ALL aether, even us, but we we are the manifested potential of aether.

The aether is everything!

Lets do a two dimensional visual exercise.

Take a square cloth. The square cloth is a 2 dimensional aether, not yet in motion. Pinch the center of it and twist. Wow! It suddenly became three dimensional and is moving, yet is still made up of the two dimensional cloth!

Imagine that happening within infinite layers and manifestations, all formed from the same cloth and able to 'form' itself into whatever form it wishes. Potential is the unmoving aether, the all of everything. Once potential goes in motion, it is being realized. We are the manifested potential of Source, of God, of aether.

Instead, we can use Sonoluminescence to describe this much more accurately. Holy crap, it is extremely similar! What a beautiful vision I just had! Incredible.

The bubble created from the vibrating electrically imbued fluid is the manifested potential of the liquid. We can SEE the bubble because of sound and light refraction, but imagine the liquid being pure and 'invisible. The only way we could see the liquid (potential aether) is to put in motion so that light refracts off of it.

In other words, we can only experience the aether by manifestation of and within the material. The aether in motion is manifested material reality. It is divine motive, realized.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

ElectroStatic Field Charge--------------------- Different DimensionsElectoMagnetic Field Charge

CHARGE = Source of Energy

ES Field + EM Field = singular effect of vortical motion because of the Source of Energy: Charge.

I said, "Dormant ElectroMagnetic field", but that was only one of two dormant Cause 'dimensions'. The second is ElectroStatic. Having two Cause Dimensions active, causes a singular effect: Vortical Movement

The Origin of Force (Charge) is the same 'force' but it affects the two Cause Dimensions very differently. This effect is stabilized by a certain shape: the Geometric Sphere.

----------

In order to manifest fully into the material, both Fields must be at the 1 Spin state to hold the proper geometric sphere shape.

The ElectroStatic Field Cause Dimension manifests into the material as a 1 Spin in the Geometric Sphere shape.

The ElectroMagnetic Field Cause Dimension manifests into the material as a 1/2 Spin. The 1/2 spin only creates a spinning cone shape. In order to attain the geometric sphere shape, it has to have two cones. Also, it must have the correct angle of spin to make a sphere, which is 4pi. This creates the toriod shape (a geometric sphere shape). The wave form is antisymmetric as you can see below. Again, you can see the 1/2 relation.

With this, both Causal Field Dimensions are manifesting and in sync with each other. They have achieved stability and are self perpetuating.

Both the ElectroStatic Charge and ElectroMagnetic Charge are a reflection of each other, even though they are two entirely different manifestations. If they did not mirror each other, then an imbalance would occur, and self-perpetuation would either eventually stabilize, or more likely, collapse. Either way, there is deformation in the structure/function/movement of the manifested mass if they do not reflect each other perfectly.

No other Causal Dimensions need to exist to explain material manifestation. Before movement, both ElectroStatic Charge Field and ElectroMagnetic Charge Field are free of gaps. That means that there is no units within them. But, when motion of charge occurs, quanta is formed that is the discrete natural units of existence; Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge, and Spherical Geometry.

Also, from another angle, you have one tetrahedron facing downward and above another one which faces upward. The one above is the soul descending into matter. The one below is the physical human ascending into it's soul...or reconnecting with it's soul.

If you move them both towards each other you end up getting the star of david, or the merkaba. At the perfectly centered convergence point, when all is balanced between the two, you have a soul perfectly embodied within the physical.

I need to upload some pics of this. Easier to view, than try and say in words.

Now, we're going to make it another step more accurate. See the lines? Well, there are no 'particles' at this level. It is actually gradients of energy that make all this up. Think of it as denser regions. So, when you have the 4 spheres - because of the attraction/repulsion forces of magnetism - it creates the tetrahedron. The tetrahedron is where the interstices, or the gradient energy is 'densest'. It is 4 spheres perfectly attracted to each other and 'stick' together in the closest proximity that 4 spheres can be. But, the repulsive nature of magnetism prevents it from collapsing in on itself. This allows the 4 spheres of 'energy' to remain stable and gives the entire structure mass in the general shape of the tetrahedron.

There is no 'solid' in the micro. It is all moving energy attracting and repulsing.

Now, another step. The spheres are actually moving energy that is laterally spinning and inverting on itself, which makes it perpetual and allows the entire construct to retain stability. A laterally moving sphere inverting on itself is a torus in motion.

Here is the actual sphere, except in this representation the lines are not fully moving laterally. They only begin moving laterally when inversion is occurring.

EDIT TO ADD: OH YEAH! Here is your atom! It appears we are looking from the top down, or bottom up.

Each sphere manifests from a dormant field of electric charge, and a dormant field of magnetic charge. Once these two fields come across a vibration, it causes movement to exist within - and without - it . The movement some say is caused from light. The movement is 'captured' within charge, and caused to move in a particular manner (laterally) because of the nature of the magnetic charge field (tensegrity). REMEMBER, is not just lines or points, it is an area of movement. If we go deeper, we can call it an area of influence on the Singularity Charges of Electricity and Magnetism.

The spheres are made of identical 'stuff' (the SCEM in motion).

This is when you will hear aether always talking about two causes making a singular effect.

The two initial causes (SCEM) are the unmoving 'electric charge field' and the 'magnetic charge field'. (The word 'field' shouldn't be used though. Perhaps I will switch those around and say 'singularity')

Once these two causes have 'movement' they form aether's singular effect.

The singular effect is the torus whose entire energy area moves laterally and inverts back on itself.

Vibration and frequency are similar, yes. They are both oscillating energy movements. They move this way because of the laterally moving, inverting torus.

Dion and I discussed this when talking about the nested toruses. Right now, it seems there is a slight deformation in the perceived perfection of the torus, which makes our environmental reality not 'pure'.

What we are again to experience, is the deformation being removed from the environment, and our environment again lining up without deformation, like it was during the Golden Ages.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Does it drive you crazy that you have all this knowledge/info, but no funding/money to move forward with important projects?

Quoting: Revguard

No, because I don't feel that smart, lol.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

It is thought that to create something you only need one cause; ie God.

But no, you need two causes that interact together. The two separate causes are 'synergistic', and through their synergistic interaction with each other, it creates a singular effect. This can be viewed by the number 3. 1 Cause and another 1 Cause manifests a 3rd, which is the singular effect of 1 Cause and another Cause interacting with each other.

Now, you have the material and non-material. Two sets of 3. (the 3 and the 6)

The number 0 really doesn't exist, but it can be related to the non-material (invisible to us) realm.When discussing Tesla's 'knowing the universe by understanding 3,6,9, well that gets a little bit more in depth and originally comes from this quote by Tesla.

"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”-Tesla

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1511582

Well, Marko Rodin discovered a pattern inherent in the torus form which allows us to 'see' the 3,6,9 that Tesla was hinting at.

The 3,6,9 are singular effect points from two synergistic causes, as I showed above.

Then, perhaps, 3 and 6 that are singular effects can become another two causes that have a synergistic relationship with each other, creating the singular effect of 9...ie, creation.

Now, you can see how the numbers 1-9 are following the 2 causes = singular effect by understanding the 3,6,9 pattern.

This is going to get a little squirrel-ly. Well, maybe not. I'll put it simply.

0 does not exist in our reality. 0 cannot be because it cannot interact with anything, ever. There is nothing to interact with, therefor it cannot be a cause, and it cannot be an effect. You can imagine it as forever and always out of reach, as if you ever 'reached' it, you could never interact with it, as there is nothing there to interact with.

It is not that 0 is 'nothing'. It is that it doesn't even exist. I would call it a singularity that is impossible to interact with, but is the glue that holds it all together. Err...something like that. A form of Consciousness maybe? Perhaps it can be equated to Source.

It would be more of the transition point occurring between the synergistic causes. I once thought of it as the interaction point in the space between, but, there is no space between, it is ALL aether, even us, but we we are the manifested potential of aether.

The aether is everything!

Lets do a two dimensional visual exercise.

Take a square cloth. The square cloth is a 2 dimensional aether, not yet in motion. Pinch the center of it and twist. Wow! It suddenly became three dimensional and is moving, yet is still made up of the two dimensional cloth!

Imagine that happening within infinite layers and manifestations, all formed from the same cloth and able to 'form' itself into whatever form it wishes. Potential is the unmoving aether, the all of everything. Once potential goes in motion, it is being realized. We are the manifested potential of Source, of God, of aether.

Instead, we can use Sonoluminescence to describe this much more accurately. Holy crap, it is extremely similar! What a beautiful vision I just had! Incredible.

The bubble created from the vibrating electrically imbued fluid is the manifested potential of the liquid. We can SEE the bubble because of sound and light refraction, but imagine the liquid being pure and 'invisible. The only way we could see the liquid (potential aether) is to put in motion so that light refracts off of it.

In other words, we can only experience the aether by manifestation of and within the material. The aether in motion is manifested material reality. It is divine motive, realized.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Wow, I find this interesteng. I met a man 11 years man while I was at work(restaurant) we had 3 conversations. Anyways, to make it short. He was Tesla-or rather 'as' appearing to be Tesla. He just came in and had a cup of coffee. I didn't realize until a few days later that it WAS HIM but I would say 'as' him to be realistic here.

His message to me as from one of my See'er friends was that It is my desiny to Invent something and I will when it is "time".

Not knowing this at the time, I had asked his name and he said Nick. While he was having coffee he was reading a book. The book was a biography on Tesla!! When I looked up Tesla and found a biography on him (PBS.ORG) that picture on there of hime at 64 years of age, was a picture of this man I spoke with.

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Wow, I find this interesteng. I met a man 11 years man while I was at work(restaurant) we had 3 conversations. Anyways, to make it short. He was Tesla-or rather 'as' appearing to be Tesla. He just came in and had a cup of coffee. I didn't realize until a few days later that it WAS HIM but I would say 'as' him to be realistic here.

His message to me as from one of my See'er friends was that It is my desiny to Invent something and I will when it is "time".

Not knowing this at the time, I had asked his name and he said Nick. While he was having coffee he was reading a book. The book was a biography on Tesla!! When I looked up Tesla and found a biography on him (PBS.ORG) that picture on there of hime at 64 years of age, was a picture of this man I spoke with.

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Quoting: Saptaparna

Then you better hit the books. QED is not impossible to learn and use, it just takes some serious effort to learn the math and the background before it becomes the least bit rewarding. I think you will find QED to be a much more complete model then the QM of Bohr and Schrodinger. Start with the Feynman diagrams they are surprisingly easy to understand and work with.

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Quoting: Saptaparna

Then you better hit the books. QED is not impossible to learn and use, it just takes some serious effort to learn the math and the background before it becomes the least bit rewarding. I think you will find QED to be a much more complete model then the QM of Bohr and Schrodinger. Start with the Feynman diagrams they are surprisingly easy to understand and work with.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

I've read plenty of quantum books, etc. I just don't feel like debating you. Not in the mood.

Actually why don't you explain, in detail, why this doesn't work, since you're the smart physicist.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Quoting: Saptaparna

...OR perhaps you're just a new/novel/unique...EVOLVED kind of intelligence that thinks outside of the prefab box of information mainstream physics dictates we are to disceern our environment through.

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Quoting: Saptaparna

...OR perhaps you're just a new/novel/unique...EVOLVED kind of intelligence that thinks outside of the prefab box of information mainstream physics dictates we are to disceern our environment through.

Don't let anyone dissuade you from your research, okay?

Quoting: cosmicgypsy

Thanks Cosmicgypsy. They won't dissuade me.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

great but what it does it mean in everyday terms? can i manifest something by thinking about it? Always? Why is there a time delay, and why is this time delay unstable? Is it a safety valve? Is it the inablity to translate 'timeless' thought into our daily timeline? ie we miss?

that would be useful, not just scratching the surface with the numbers.

As a real physicist I find this kind of thing a little bit insulting. You are referring to bits and pieces from quantum mechanics, but I don't believe you have studied this material sufficiently to have anything intelligent to contribute.

This kind of QM is very dated and does not represent the best of our knowledge relating to particle physics or the microscopic scale.

I would really like to see how your theory relates to quantum electrodynamics. QED works amazingly well at predicting the behavior of particles on the micro-scale, and is a beautifully consistent theory. Please explain how you can generate an abstract description of motion (equation) from your theory and how it relates to reality as we know it. That is, is there a way, using your theory, to derive a mathematical expression that correlates with anything that we observe in reality as we know it?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Like I said above. I'm not that smart.

Quoting: Saptaparna

Then you better hit the books. QED is not impossible to learn and use, it just takes some serious effort to learn the math and the background before it becomes the least bit rewarding. I think you will find QED to be a much more complete model then the QM of Bohr and Schrodinger. Start with the Feynman diagrams they are surprisingly easy to understand and work with.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

I've read plenty of quantum books, etc. I just don't feel like debating you. Not in the mood.

Actually why don't you explain, in detail, why this doesn't work, since you're the smart physicist.

Quoting: Saptaparna

Reading quantum books wont help. If you want to learn QM you need to do it, as in define the theory, make the calculations, do the experiment and see if works. You cannot learn QM or physics in general by simply reading books.

I guess I'm not saying that the ideas here don't 'work' or are invalid, I'm just curious as to what physical phenomenonyou are attempting to model. I fail to see how this relates to anything in the reality that we live in. You need to measure something, otherwise its about as good as string theory.

Lets start at the top...

Creation is a difficult concept to work with.

Are electron-positron pairs 'created' when a gamma-ray hits an atom? and when the pair annihilates to create more gamma-rays, are these gammas 'created'.

In the above example you have a case where a single gamma-ray photon (no charge) interacting with an atom, creates two other particles (positive and negative, charge still net zero), and then you have a case where two particles come together and create gammas, again no charge no (rest)mass.

So here you have 1 gamma, interacting with 1 atom, to produce 2 particles. Is 4 a acceptable number for creation.

Imagine the whole thing moving, emitting sound energy and recapturing light. The two pyramidal structures creating spin and vortices, concurrently able to freely spin 360 degrees on any axis. The circle of spin subsuming the cube of field, ebbing and flowing.

Quoting: Dionysian Fullaflattus

Quoting: Swinging on Spirals

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Then you better hit the books. QED is not impossible to learn and use, it just takes some serious effort to learn the math and the background before it becomes the least bit rewarding. I think you will find QED to be a much more complete model then the QM of Bohr and Schrodinger. Start with the Feynman diagrams they are surprisingly easy to understand and work with.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

I've read plenty of quantum books, etc. I just don't feel like debating you. Not in the mood.

Actually why don't you explain, in detail, why this doesn't work, since you're the smart physicist.

Quoting: Saptaparna

Reading quantum books wont help. If you want to learn QM you need to do it, as in define the theory, make the calculations, do the experiment and see if works. You cannot learn QM or physics in general by simply reading books.

I guess I'm not saying that the ideas here don't 'work' or are invalid, I'm just curious as to what physical phenomenonyou are attempting to model. I fail to see how this relates to anything in the reality that we live in. You need to measure something, otherwise its about as good as string theory.

Lets start at the top...

Creation is a difficult concept to work with.

Are electron-positron pairs 'created' when a gamma-ray hits an atom? and when the pair annihilates to create more gamma-rays, are these gammas 'created'.

In the above example you have a case where a single gamma-ray photon (no charge) interacting with an atom, creates two other particles (positive and negative, charge still net zero), and then you have a case where two particles come together and create gammas, again no charge no (rest)mass.

So here you have 1 gamma, interacting with 1 atom, to produce 2 particles. Is 4 a acceptable number for creation.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

Yes, 4 is acceptable as well. We can view platonic solids that way in that it requires 4 spheres to create the first platonic solid; tetrahedron.

Of course, I am not here to do exact science. I am not stating that this is fact. As you said, most of this type of research is theoretical modeling.

I enjoy thinking differently, and GLP is my venue to post thoughts like this, and try and work them out. I have always thought Tesla's quote on 3, 6, 9 fascinating as a mystery, and this post concerns figuring out possibilities to his quote more than anything.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Reading quantum books wont help. If you want to learn QM you need to do it, as in define the theory, make the calculations, do the experiment and see if works. You cannot learn QM or physics in general by simply reading books.

I guess I'm not saying that the ideas here don't 'work' or are invalid, I'm just curious as to what physical phenomenonyou are attempting to model. I fail to see how this relates to anything in the reality that we live in. You need to measure something, otherwise its about as good as string theory.

Lets start at the top...

Creation is a difficult concept to work with.

Are electron-positron pairs 'created' when a gamma-ray hits an atom? and when the pair annihilates to create more gamma-rays, are these gammas 'created'.

In the above example you have a case where a single gamma-ray photon (no charge) interacting with an atom, creates two other particles (positive and negative, charge still net zero), and then you have a case where two particles come together and create gammas, again no charge no (rest)mass.

So here you have 1 gamma, interacting with 1 atom, to produce 2 particles. Is 4 a acceptable number for creation.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

you know what is funny? quantum reality is not the monopoly of the scientific way of understanding it.

scientific understanding through abstract models, mathematical equations and the rest is only away to make sense of reality.

but that reality was there from the beginning of time. and as quantum theory comes to terms with the subjective side of reality (i.e. consciousness) making room for understanding the subject in a comprehensive view of reality, this does not dismiss the shorter route of influencing reality at quantum levels directly through subjective consciousness.

then again, what you say is true, in the sense that if one wants to get to a clear abstract understanding of the world, he cannot bypass the hard work of devising abstract models of the world, using mathematics and other scientific tools.

but there is another way, more practical. which has certain prerequisites which are not simpler to obtain, than in the case of scientific abstract reasoning.

Did you know Tesla ‘saw’ his visions? He literally viewed ‘images’ of his work when he worked. He viewed and worked them out in his head.

Abstract – Nikola Tesla is undoubtedly the greatest inventor in the history of electrical engineering, and what makes him especially fascinating was his unusual mental control of creative visions which might serve as an extraordinary case study for understanding the very biophysical nature of creativity. In this regard, quantum bases of consciousness and creativity are considered in the framework of two cognitive modes of consciousness (direct religious-creative one, characteristic of quantum-coherent transitional and altered states of individual consciousness, and indirect sensory/rationally mediated one, characteristic of classically-reduced normal states of individual consciousness) – together with conditions of transforming one mode into another – using theoretical methods of associative neural networks and quantum neural holography combined with quantum decoherence theory. It seems that such theoretical analysis offers extraordinary biophysical basis for traditional/ transpersonal psychology of transitional and altered states of consciousness, and enables understanding and control of cognitive-creative processes, both in waking and sleep states. It was also pointed out that secret of Tesla’s creativity is presumably related to the waking meditative control of transitional and altered states of consciousness.(from: Tesla and Quantum-Coherent States of Consciousness: Case Study for Understanding Nature of Creativity) [link to www.scribd.com]

How/why was he able to do this? Was he just a genius and this was part of his natural given ability?

I am thinking it may have been something different. It was the environment that he submerged himself in while doing his studies that connected him! That produced his flashes of imagery and intuition!

What if it was his environment that caused him to be so connected, so brilliant in this field that he worked, literally, INSIDE OF?

Maybe, it was not only ‘money and greed’ that prevented him from releasing his work in full, but connection to source itself?

Think…if E/M is the secret, then he was connecting to source without realizing it. What if the solutions Tesla was presenting were not only solving our energy problems, but causing a connection to source?

Instead of energy being funneled above and below us, we would have been submerged in it, through and through. Instead of creating insulated wires hovering over and below us, we would have created ourselves as being insulated.

What the important part was is the correlation of thought processes.

What if TPTB, or whoever they were, had a two-fold reason for not letting Tesla’s work get out.

1. Oil and preservation of global economy2. Prevention of humans in connecting to Source

Quoting: Swinging on Spirals

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Reading quantum books wont help. If you want to learn QM you need to do it, as in define the theory, make the calculations, do the experiment and see if works. You cannot learn QM or physics in general by simply reading books.

I guess I'm not saying that the ideas here don't 'work' or are invalid, I'm just curious as to what physical phenomenonyou are attempting to model. I fail to see how this relates to anything in the reality that we live in. You need to measure something, otherwise its about as good as string theory.

Lets start at the top...

Creation is a difficult concept to work with.

Are electron-positron pairs 'created' when a gamma-ray hits an atom? and when the pair annihilates to create more gamma-rays, are these gammas 'created'.

In the above example you have a case where a single gamma-ray photon (no charge) interacting with an atom, creates two other particles (positive and negative, charge still net zero), and then you have a case where two particles come together and create gammas, again no charge no (rest)mass.

So here you have 1 gamma, interacting with 1 atom, to produce 2 particles. Is 4 a acceptable number for creation.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23524705

you know what is funny? quantum reality is not the monopoly of the scientific way of understanding it.

scientific understanding through abstract models, mathematical equations and the rest is only away to make sense of reality.

but that reality was there from the beginning of time. and as quantum theory comes to terms with the subjective side of reality (i.e. consciousness) making room for understanding the subject in a comprehensive view of reality, this does not dismiss the shorter route of influencing reality at quantum levels directly through subjective consciousness.

then again, what you say is true, in the sense that if one wants to get to a clear abstract understanding of the world, he cannot bypass the hard work of devising abstract models of the world, using mathematics and other scientific tools.

but there is another way, more practical. which has certain prerequisites which are not simpler to obtain, than in the case of scientific abstract reasoning.

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?

Saptaparna ~ Seven-leaves, sevenfold; the man-plant, sevenfold man, seven-principled human being. ~ Spinning infinity. The wheel is spinning me and it's never ending.~ What if I say I'm not like the others? What if I say I'm not just another one of of your plays?